The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Are Atheists Genetic Mutants-A Product of Recent Evolution?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
evolution

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Atheists are genetic mutants who, for the most part, would never have been born if we hadn’t managed to break free of pre-industrial conditions of Darwinian selection. This was the conclusion of a paper published just before Christmas in the leading journal Evolutionary Psychological Science[The Mutant Says in His Heart, “There Is No God”: The Rejection of Collective Religiosity Centred Around the Worship of Moral Gods is Associated with High Mutational Load Edward Dutton, Guy Madison & Curtis Dunkel. (PDF).] and it sent establishment psychologists into spasms of rage.

To be sophisticated, these days, means that you’re an atheist. Academia is overwhelmingly atheist and average intelligence weakly correlates with not believing in God [High IQ turns academics into atheists,’ Times Higher Education, byRebecca Atwood, June 12, 2008]. For SJWs, the religious are at best stupid and, at worst, racist bigots who vote for Donald Trump and Brexit. So it’s no surprise that the paper was greeted with disbelief by the SJWs who fill departments of psychology.

Reactions ranged from “Amazing!” to condemning it as the worst paper of the year and “one of the most egregious papers I’ve ever read.” Reported in newspapers worldwide [Atheists more likely to be left handed, study finds, by Olivia Rudgard,Daily Telegraph, December 21, 2017], its authors presumably delighted in the reaction.

And the reaction was all the more ferocious because the paper’s conclusions are difficult to dispute. The researchers—British anthropologist Dr Edward Dutton, Swedish psychologist Prof. Guy Madison and Western Illinois University psychologist Curtis Dunkel—presented a beautifully simple case:

Until the Industrial Revolution, we were under harsh conditions of Darwinian Selection, meaning that about 40% of children died before they reached adulthood. These children would have been those who had mutant genes, leading to poor immune systems and death from childhood diseases. But they would also have had mutant genes affecting the mind. This is because the brain, home to 84% of the genome, is extraordinarily sensitive to mutation, so mental and physical mutation robustly correlate. If these children had grown up, they might have had autism, schizophrenia, depression… but they had poor immune systems, so they never had the chance.

Under these conditions, prevalent until the nineteenth century, we were individually selected for but we were also “group selected” for. Ethnic groups are simply a genetic extended family and some groups fared better against the environment and enemy groups than others did, due to the kind of partly genetic psychological adaptations they developed.

Among these, the authors argue, was a very specific kind of religiosity which developed in all complex societies: the collective worship of gods concerned with morality. Belief in these kinds of gods was selected for, they maintain, because once we developed cities we had to deal with strangers—people who weren’t part of our extended family. By conceiving of a god who demanded moral behaviour towards other believers, people were compelled to cooperate with these strangers, meaning that large, highly cooperative groups could develop.

Computer models have proven that the more internally cooperative group—which is also hostile to infidel outsiders—wins the battle of group selection [The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation by Max Hartshorn, June 2013]. This very specific kind of religiousness was selected for and, indeed, it correlates with positive and negative ethnocentrism even today.

The authors demonstrate that this kind of religiousness has clearly been selected for in itself. It is about 40% genetic according to twin studies, it is associated with strongly elevated fertility, it can be traced to activity in specific regions of the brain, and it is associated with elevated health: all the key markers that something has been selected for.

And it is from here that the authors make the leap that has made SJW blood boil. Drawing on research by Michael Woodley of Menie and his team (see here and here)they argue that conditions of Darwinian selection have now massively weakened, leading to a huge rise in people with damaging mutations. This is evidenced in increasing rates of autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, sex-dysmorphia, left-handedness, asymmetrical bodies and much else. These are all indicators of mutant genes.

Woodley suggests that weakened Darwinian selection would have led to the spread of “spiteful mutations” of the mind, which would help to destroy the increasingly physically and mentally sick group, even influencing the non-carriers to behave against their genetic interests, as carriers would help undermine the structures through which members learnt adaptive behaviour.

This is exactly what happened in the infamous Mouse Utopia experiment in the late 1960s, where a colony of mice was placed in conditions of zero Darwinian selection and eventually died out. [Death squared: The explosive growth and demise of a mouse population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, January 1973(PDF)].

So Dutton and his team argue that, this being the case, deviation from this very specific form of religiousness—the collective worship of moral gods in which almost everyone engaged in 1800—should be associated with these markers of mutation. In other words, both atheists and those interested in spirituality with no moral gods (such as the paranormal) should be disproportionately mutants.

And this is precisely what they show. Poor physical and mental health are both significantly genetic and imply high mutational load. Dutton and his team demonstrate that this specific form of religiousness, when controlling for key factors such as SES, predicts much better objective mental and physical health, recovery from illness, and longevity than atheism.

It’s generally believed that religiousness makes you healthier because it makes you worry less and elevates your mood, but they turn this view on its head, showing that religious worshippers are more likely to carry gene forms associated with being low in anxiety. Schizophrenia, they show, is associated with extreme and anti-social religiosity, rather than collective worship. Similarly, belief in the paranormal is predicted by schizophrenia, and this is a marker of genetic mutation.

Next, they test autism, another widely accepted marker of mutation, as evidenced by the fact that it’s more common among the children of older men, whose fathers are prone to mutant sperm. Autism predicts atheism.

They then look at data on left-handedness. In agricultural societies we are overwhelmingly right-handed. Left-handedness means an asymmetrical brain and thus, to some extent, mutation. They show that there is a weak but significant trend whereby the more strongly religious you are the more likely you are to be right-handed, just as the theory would predict. Finally, they turn to plain ugliness—asymmetry. This shows that your immune system is so deficient that you haven’t been able to maintain a symmetrical phenotype in the face of disease or that you simply have mutant genes that make you asymmetrical. Believers in the paranormal have less symmetrical hands than do controls.

So, on these key markers of mutation, the theory is—to the fury of its critics—borne out.

The authors then pre-empt a number of criticisms. They argue that though, in theory, Buddhists do not believe in gods, in practice they do either implicitly or by combining Buddhism with older religions, like Shinto. The authors maintain that firm and consistent believers in overtly atheistic ideologies are really quite close to the “collective moral-god religious,” with their implicit belief in Fate and something which may underlie it. In addition, in practice these ideologues end-up deifying their leaders into moral gods anyway.

Finally, the authors note that intelligence is weakly negatively associated with religiousness and that low intelligence is a weak sign of mutation.

But they don’t see this as a contradiction. Intelligence, they show, is now negatively associated with fertility in modern conditions, though positively correlated with it in pre-modern conditions. Intelligent people don’t want to breed and, from an evolutionary perspective, nothing could be more maladaptive. Accordingly, high intelligence is maladaptive in our current environment and so we would expect high intelligence to be associated with ways of thinking that were themselves associated with mutation.

The average atheist is likely an atheist because of mutant genes. The clever atheist is an atheist because his high intelligence, which correlates with being low in instinctive behaviour, means that in our very low stress environment he has become, in effect, a mutant. His intelligence means he can easily overcome his instinct to believe in God, especially where stress levels are low. This has led to his having very few children (with no religious belief imploring him to breed and low instinctiveness anyway), and to his genes dying out. Those of his large-brood religious friends – with their adaptive genes – will inherit the earth. The intelligent atheist is, in effect, a mutant.

The ferocity of the reaction to this study is best encapsulated in series of blog posts on the popular Psychology Today magazine website by Australian psychologist Scott McGreal, MSc; with titles like , “The Fool says in his heart that atheists are mutants” March 17, 2018, “Religiosity, Atheism and Health”; March 19, 2018, and Are Atheists Mutants?: The Left Hand of Daftness.”] However, McGreal, a member of Atheist Nexus, simply wilfully misunderstands their study.

He highlights evidence of atheism in Ancient Greece, but this only manifested itself as Darwinian selection had been weakened by centuries of city life and warm climate and as social status (and thus intelligence) was negatively associated with fertility, just as now (See In God’s Image: The Natural History of Intelligence and Ethics Gerhard Meisenberg. [2007]) He questions whether the religion-health nexus exists with data on “subjective health,” which is the worst possible measure of objective health. He shows that non-religious Jews are healthier than some religious gentiles; meaningless as the Jews are likely to be more intelligent. And he questions whether anything about atheism can be inferred from “pathological” autistics being atheists.

To this it can be responded that we all sit on a spectrum between autistic (defined as the inability to ‘mentalize’; to understand cues of the thinking of others), and schizophrenic, where you over-mentalize and read too much into the cues, meaning you become paranoid and perceive the world as massive conspiracy in which everything is controlled, making you highly religious. [Hypermentalism: An insight whose time has come, by Christopher Badcock Psychology Today, March 8,2009]. McGreal also resorts to assorted appeals to authority, straw-man arguments, desperate nit picking and plain insults.

Dutton & Co.’s research is so incendiary because it is presenting the SJWs with what they really are: mutants; maladapted people who undermine carefully evolved, evolutionarily useful structures—such as religion—meaning they make even non-carriers maladapted; discouraging them from breeding or from defending their ethnic group.

Under normal Darwinian conditions, prevalent until the Industrial Revolution, these mutants would simply never have been born. They are, just like the mutant mice, people whose influence will ultimately lead to the collapse of society, as intelligence declines, and we return to a new Dark Age in which people are likely to be very religious indeed.

But perhaps there is some good news. It’s quite clear from the Mouse Utopia experiments that if the mutants are removed, then the society will recover.

Lance Welton [Email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Evolution, Religion 
Hide 106 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I think at most this can indicate that there was a period when weak asabiya (group cohesion, fellow feeling), and its markers such as religiosity, was not strongly maladaptive in Western societies. Roughly the period of the Industrial Revolution through to birth control, about 1800-1960.

    Now again we have a situation where lack of religiosity and other group-cohesion indicators correlate with strongly reduced fertility. Mormons Muslims & Amish it seems will inherit the West.

  2. Nick Diaz says:

    This is the most inane, vile and dishonest article I’ve read in ages. So believing in things without evidence, which is the essence of religious belief, is a sign of having better genes? How is being delusional and illogical signs of better genes? At least the author admits that atheists are more intelligent, and then goes on to try to desperately misconstrue this as a bad thing.

    Too bad, also, because the evidence we have indicates the opposite about atheists: atheists live longer, make more money, have better health and do not show particularly high rates of autism or schizofrenia. Atheists *might* have slightly higher levels of Asperger’s Syndrome, but that correlates with intelligence and not merely with atheist. It’s just that atheism correlates with intelligence, and since Asperger’s Syndrome also correlates with intelligence, hence atheists might have slightly higher levels of Asperger’s.

    How nice of the author to try to equate the ability to think logically with mutations, and try to pathologize it as something bad. Because any one who thinks logically concludes that God or gods are implausible. So, if atheist results from mutations, then I propose that those are good mutations. After all, our ability to think logically has allowed us to cure diseases, travel to other planetary bodies and create wonderful technology that makes our lives so much better.

    I also find it very strange to postulate a dichotomy between instinct and intelligence, as if somehow , supposedly, the “mutants” overcame their “instinct” to believe in God because of their supposed genetic mutations that results in faulty wiring in the brain, and not because they simply thought about it and concluded that believing in God is nonsensical. I think the author is trying to convince himself that atheists are the ones who are truly stupid and that those God-fearing theists are, after all, the smart ones. The author is trying to equate the higher intelligence of atheists as an inferior and faulty form of intelligence, and trying to suggest that theists are actually smarter with “healthier”, “non-mutant” wirings to their brains. How disingenuous.

    And finally, some of the greatest men in history were southpaws. Leonardo da Vinci, Alexander the Great and others were southpaws. If those are mutants, then I want to be a mutant, too. Much better than being some obese, unintelligent, buck-toothed, Bible-thumping moron who believes that the Earth is only 4,000 years old and that Noah could fit all the species of animals and plants in the World in a Chalcolithic Era boat slightly larger than a modern yatch. If people like these are the result of non-mutant genes, then we desperately need mutations!

  3. m___ says:

    Mutants, atheists being mutants.

    Mutants in the sense that only recently, atheism became prevalent as a sub-group? Makes a lot of sense. That is where eugenics come in. Dissociate the load on genes from the outcome “atheist” and come up with a winner humanoid. Transcending humanity into a humanoid that can survive, auto engineer itself into long term survival would be the only way out.

    Missing out on that chance,

    Now again we have a situation where lack of religiosity and other group-cohesion indicators correlate with strongly reduced fertility. Mormons Muslims & Amish it seems will inherit the West. (comment: Simon of London)

    …there will be no future lack of capitalism, thick, dense broths of humans, politicians, policemen, priests, and business geniuses and on. Anything low in mutations, will be prevalent. Thanks God gracious. In the name of Allah the merciful.

    The outcome is obvious for only timely outcomes of AI, biology of genetics, can “mutate” the the races indistinctly into survival. Fascinating times, the turning point at reach and invisible, catalogued as immoral.

    This article goes a long way in explaining why capitalism, theoretical economics, the global economy, are quasi religious theories so readily consumed by any individual up to the power elites. They cater to the exact same lack of overload and mutation. The zombies are the “good guys”. The zombies are bottom to top.

  4. dearieme says:

    As teasing goes it’s rather coarse. On the other hand it’s done with great style. Anyway, who needs teasing more than SJW twerps in the universities?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @gate666
  5. j2 says:

    Oh gosh, another Edward Dutton. I start to like this guy, is he not in Oulu any more? I read the article. About it: hunter gatherers have very low population growth. It is not mainly caused by infant deaths but by a long time before getting pregnant, and they also practices infanticide, but this infanticide did not target the immunological or other markers of mutational load. It was like killing one of the twins so that the mother can move with the group. This was the natural environment of humans. The time of agriculture with a high birth rate and high infant morbidity due to infectious diseases was an abnormality. It may have had some effect on human genome, but not necessarily any positive effect.

    The assumption in the article is that as today in developed nations most infants grow into adults and do not die before 3 years as earlier, the mutational load has increased into too high levels. Yet, it should not be much higher than in hunter gatherer societies, which also had low birth rate and many violent deaths due to factors, which are not directly connected with a mutational load. It may be true that today we have more mental and developmental illnesses in adults, but they may not produce so many children that the situation is worse than in the time of higher consanguinity.

    The methods of this field of research are very much in doubt. For instance, is the reason for a negative correlation between IQ and religiosity to be found in the genes or rather in the culture as our culture teaches that religion is false and above average IQ people are good learners (unfortunately not as good original thinkers), so they believe what is told. We can answer this easily looking at history, it was not so always, so it is not genes. Indeed, very smart hunter gathers thought that there are spirits and they gazed at stars for explanations. So far there still is the traditional, customary way, and it in many places includes a belief in a religion. Decent people follow that, deviants are in a rebel. It is changing and has already changed in many places, but not everywhere. Decent people are healthier and so on, while a rebel can be a bit worse off, drinking too much and having sex which does not lead to children. But this is not genetic and it does not mean a mutational load.

    I do not know if these authors are cynical and abuse the lack of scientific methods in their very poor field, or just want sensations, or do they have a political agenda. Such articles are nice to read and wake up thoughts, but they should not appear in scientific literature. The authors do not consider all alternative explanations and carefully discard all but one and conclude something that can be trusted. They just take something that may faintly look like a research method, apply it and announce that they got such and such results. I understand if the goal is to get papers to students as the university demands doctorates for budget reasons and you work there, but otherwise I do not think one should do it.

    It is an interesting idea: is the mutational load increasing. But this article does not convince me of it. Polemics, this is polemics.

  6. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @dearieme

    It’s hilarious. And you can’t get any coarser than “SJW twerps” already are.

    I’m coming around to the view of frequent commenter “Thorfinnsson” that trolling is the highest form of internet interaction.

  7. Rationality is not a bad mutation. Not all atheists are left wing!

    • Agree: Roderick Spode
  8. Dutch Boy says:

    The explosion of autism diagnoses in the last thirty years is due not aged fathers but to the reckless vaccination policy pursued during that period. Autism is an auto-immune phenomenon in which the microglial cells of the brain become activated by multiple exposures to vaccine antigens and to the toxic metals (aluminum and mercury) used as preservatives and adjuvants, causing them to become stuck in a “cell danger response” that prevents normal cognition. Absent the vaccines, there would be few cases of autism, just as there were prior to the vast expansion of the vaccine schedule.

    https://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2017-05-26-century-old-drug-potential-new-approach-to-autism.aspx

  9. Dutch Boy says:

    Atheism is a metaphysical error induced at the behest of the powerful who object to any moral limitations on their power. It has been found useful by various ideological movements from liberal Capitalism to Socialism to National Socialism, all of which reject traditional moral principles.

  10. Anon[288] • Disclaimer says:

    The notion that atheism is recent, and therefore the result of mutations, may very well be wrong. Ancient societies punished any hint of religious deviation severely, and laws forced people to go to church and mouth religious orthodoxy. Frankly, we have ZERO idea of what long-dead individuals believed and chose to stay silent about. We can’t read their minds.

    The study is based on a unproveable premise.

    • Replies: @Anon
  11. That make total sense. Because believing in gods is necessary for civic harmony, there must therefore actually be gods.

    Atheists are mutants? We are all mutants. Every living thing.

  12. songbird says:

    I thought that there was some evidence that genes associated with schizophrenia were under selective pressures for some mysterious reason or other.

  13. Anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Ancient non christian societies had churches.

    • Replies: @KA
  14. Anon[110] • Disclaimer says:

    The author is an intelligent atheist।।

  15. gate666 says:
    @dearieme

    there are plenty of right wing atheists.

    • Replies: @SMK
  16. @Simon in London

    And Conservative Laestadians. I believe they have a TFR (Total Fertility Rate) above 5, which suggests that some centuries from now they will constitute a large fraction of mankind.

    • Replies: @j2
  17. j2 says:
    @The Monster from Polaris

    Laestadians won’t because their children mostly leave the sect and assimilate to the common half-atheistic population of the Polar countries. Hasidim children do stay in their sect and their proportion is ever growing. But that’s nothing new, I think in humanity there always has been very unequal number of children between family lineages. This is shown by the fact that rare recessive diseases are not purged from the population as would be the case with equal fertility.

  18. @Nick Diaz

    From Wiwkipedia:

    Physically, Alexander was not prepossessing. Even by Macedonian standards he was very short, though stocky and tough. His beard was scanty, and he stood out against his hirsute Macedonian barons by going clean-shaven. His neck was in some way twisted, so that he appeared to be gazing upward at an angle. His eyes (one blue, one brown) revealed a dewy, feminine quality. He had a high complexion and a harsh voice.[164]

    During his final years, and especially after the death of Hephaestion, Alexander began to exhibit signs of megalomania and paranoia.[128]

    Green argues that there is little evidence in ancient sources that Alexander had much carnal interest in women; he did not produce an heir until the very end of his life.[164]

    Doesn’t say if he was left handed. Apparently he really wasn’t.

  19. Prepare the Holy Inquisition.

  20. @Dutch Boy

    Another vaccine loony! Let me offer a different proposal that is starting to gain some clinical traction but is VERY hard to study. Not because it is hard to study, but because it is politically hard to study.

    First off to shoot your vaccine lunacy full of holes, vaccination is now about a century old. Strangely, autism did not rise until very recently. So then like any good scientist we look at variables. What has changed?

    Mothers are FAT. Full stop. Your baby is basically YOU. When your body is a toxic wasteland of blood sludge what else would you expect? There have been a few studies now with some association between the land whale obesity epidemic and babies born on the spectrum. You won’t see any DIRECT studies because that would require westerners to put down their Big Macs and Supersize Fries. That ain’t gonna happen…

    Secondarily, what else is different? We are being absolutely positively bombarded with higher and higher frequency EM radiation every few years. Supposedly no cell damage can occur because it is non ionizing but I wonder if anyone has turned a 4G or 5G signal on for a decade near tissue to study it? We also see its negative effects in mice already so the myth of only very high end EM emission causing issues is starting to be disproven with prolonged exposure like we face today. It is literally all around you 24x7x365.

    Lastly, people are getting pregnant much older, and in some cases, dangerously older age. The three things listed above would have absolutely profound effects on the development / birth cycle if taken in isolation. When you mix them into a stew like today? Get real… vaccinations, just stop.

  21. Bliss says:

    Atheists are genetic mutants who, for the most part, would never have been born if we hadn’t managed to break free of pre-industrial conditions of Darwinian selection. This was the conclusion of a paper published just before Christmas in the leading journal Evolutionary Psychological Science

    Well over 2000 years before the Industrial Revolution, Atheism-Materialism identical to today’s version was well established in India:

    http://www.mahavidya.ca/2008/06/22/carvarka-materialist-philosophy/

    The doctrine dismisses all gods, devas and supernatural beings (Hiriyanna 193). It is also recognized that there is no god who governs the universe, no life after death, or conscience (dharma). The material world is all that exists and there are no other worlds in which to be reborn. This fixates a follower totally on the world of sense around them and does not inspire elevated thoughts of a deeper reality. There is no god who created the world, but a conglomeration of matter that is able to produce things out of itself (Dasgupta 175). Carvaka rejects the idea of Brahman because nobody has come back to relate to us what happens after death. Brahman is inferred, and cannot be perceived by the senses. Therefore the Carvaka rejects Brahman. Only the four elements of earth, fire, water and air are recognized and these together produce intelligence that is destroyed when the body perishes. Just like intelligence, atman or the soul is not believed to be a separate entity from the body as it is unable to be demonstrated that it does exists.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  22. Biological arguments aside, Christians have only one wad to shoot: Their claim that the historical Jesus rose from the dead, that he has terrifying supernatural powers, and that he’ll use these powers to punish us in the afterlife – like Pinhead in those dumb Hellraiser movies, I suppose.

    If you don’t believe that fantasy, then what does Jesus have left?

  23. j2 says:

    “Biological arguments aside, Christians have only one wad to shoot: Their claim that the historical Jesus rose from the dead, that he has terrifying supernatural powers, and that he’ll use these powers to punish us in the afterlife – like Pinhead in those dumb Hellraiser movies, I suppose.
    If you don’t believe that fantasy, then what does Jesus have left?”

    Most Atheists have very little knowledge on this topic and they repeat arguments from the time of Enlightenment. I try to give a short answer.
    1. There are Christians who believe in the way you write. It follows the teaching of Paul in the epistles, of which Paul himself writes that he teaches like for children as the pagans (like Greeks) could not tolerate more of the truth in the beginning. James the Just forbid Paul from teaching Jews, as Paul’s teaching was though to be too simplified. Paul told not to pay much attention to genealogies of Jesus and to the Jewish stuff there.
    2. The disciples of Jesus, lead by James the Just, saw Jesus as the prophet messiah fulfilling the prophesies. because of that Jesus had to work miracles, be born from a virgin, rise from death, sit in heaven in the side of God, come to punish humanity in the Day of God. As all this is in prophesies (as Essenes read them), this all had to happen as signs of the end of the times (end of an Era). It does not mean that the miracles had to be real miracles, the virgin birth means Mary was a virgin, or rising from the death had to be real waking up of a dead person. Symbolic filling of prophesies was an accepted way of filling prophesies in those times. (Like in Macbeth the prophecy of a forest moving was fulfilled but not by a real miracle.) From Josephus Flavius Jewish War it follows that the comet of 66 AD was understood as the sign of Messiah, who came from the Heaven with his army of angels. That sign started the war and a king messiah (a human of kingly descent) was supposed to appear and win the war after the initial prophesied loss, destruction of the temple and enslavement of the people as is predicted in Zachariah. So, the way the first Church in Jerusalem understood Christianity was quite different, very Jewish.
    3. Most Christians today do not have a strong opinion on issues like the virgin birth, miracles, rising from death or Final Judgment. They believe that humans should do good and justice rather than bad and injustice. They believe that there is God who sometimes may hear prayers and that in some way there is life after death. And they believe that what is in the Bible, mainly in the New Testament, is in some unclear way true, but they are not able to explain in what sense it is true. Most of them do not try to explain it as it is not their main interest. There are many Christian sects with different views on details.
    4. Then of course there are people who have studied the topic and tried to understand what happened in the historical sense and what is the basis of these beliefs. Not all such people are atheists. Probably a minority are atheists/materialists as they are interested in such a topic. There are old beliefs of many religions. The less believable things in Christianity come directly from Second Temple Judaism and are related to later Kabbalism, like that the Messiah makes miracles and rises the dead. Many of the people who ridicule Christianity are actually Jewish, but do not know Second Temple Judaism, especially Essene beliefs. A fool says in his heart there is no God, as he does not know nothing of this topic and its long history. Religious believes, like everything else, requires long studies in order to understand what those people meant and how those beliefs developed. Judaism is one religion, which developed from religions of that area and it includes the belief in Eras (the time is divided in times, there are ends of times and a savior at the end of times, like in Hinduism or in Zoroastrism). There is the sacrifice, which probably originates from the main paradigm of agriculture: you sacrifice a seed by burying it in the ground. There is the night sky with stars, from which you can read what was and what will be and many myths are based on stars.

    In a short post one cannot give a good explanation on a complex issue. As a summary, different people understand Christianity in different ways. There are those who believe in a fantasy as you write (like some evangelic sects), those who understand it in a different way and those who consider themselves Christians and do not try to understand those things as they are not interested.

    • Replies: @KA
  24. Bliss says:
    @Bliss

    More on these ancient atheists:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka

    The earliest documented Charvaka scholar in India is Ajita Kesakambali. Although materialist schools existed before Charvaka, it was the only school which systematised materialist philosophy by setting them down in the form of aphorisms in the 6th century BC. There was a base text, a collection sūtras or aphorisms and several commentaries were written to explicate the aphorisms.

    Charvakas denied metaphysical concepts like reincarnation, an extracorporeal soul, the efficacy of religious rites, other worlds (heaven and hell), fate and accumulation of merit or demerit through the performance of certain actions. Charvakas also rejected the use of supernatural causes to describe natural phenomena. To them all natural phenomena was produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things.

    Charvakas, according to Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha verses 10 and 11, declared the Vedas to be incoherent rhapsodies whose only usefulness was to provide livelihood to priests. They also held the belief that Vedas were invented by man, and had no divine authority……..Charvakas rejected the need for ethics or morals, and suggested that “while life remains, let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt”………Charvakas assert that there is nothing beyond the senses, consciousness is an emergent property, and that it is foolish to seek what cannot be seen.

    There is no other world other than this;
    There is no heaven and no hell;
    The realm of Shiva and like regions,
    are fabricated by stupid imposters.

    — Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verse 8

    The enjoyment of heaven lies in eating delicious food, keeping company of young women, using fine clothes, perfumes, garlands, sandal paste… while moksha is death which is cessation of life-breath… the wise therefore ought not to take pains on account of moksha……A fool wears himself out by penances and fasts. Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings.

    — Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verses 9-12

  25. KA says:

    He highlights evidence of atheism in Ancient Greece, but this only manifested itself as Darwinian selection had been weakened by centuries of city life and warm climate and as social status (and thus intelligence) was negatively associated with fertility, just as now (See In God’s Image: The Natural History of Intelligence and Ethics Gerhard Meisenberg. [2007]) He questions whether the religion-health nexus exists with data on “subjective health,” which is the worst possible measure of objective health. He shows that non-religious Jews are healthier than some religious gentiles; meaningless as the Jews are likely to be more intelligent. And he questions whether anything about atheism can be inferred from “pathological” autistics being atheists.”————

    — -Better climate and better nutrition in Greece led to better survival rate of those who would have died otherwise giving rise to the birth of mutant genetic bodies and mind .

    Better medication and Heath services gave rise to increased survival of genetically defective mind and bodies who would have died otherwise.
    - Answer—what a stupid analogy and what a stupid effort to reach a predetermined conclusion by analogy

    Social status is in Grece and social status now are not same . High social status in those Greek days meant more children . Woman didn’t have feminism back then . Choice of having kids was not dependent on them

    Autism and schizophrenia do not leave kids , do not pass genes . They die and take their genes with them . They don’t give rise to shared and permanent t generational world view . Their asociality and paranoia put their lives at risk . Without help from outside , they will not survive . Their contribution to anything is nil other than to pain, violence criminality sufferings and deprivation.

    Afro Americans ,Mexicans and forest people in Papua New Guines are very religious ( now don’t try to give me the shit that Papuan dint follow religion ) but not very healthy .

    Also it is intelligence that makes you healthy , makes you choose better lifestyle . Not religion , if religion, then atheist Jews would have been intelligent but unhealthy .’ Religion gene and brain areas for religion’ should and should have worked ( for religious Gentiles ) to choose better life style despite having less intelligent and having less of those genes that are responsible for intelligence .

  26. KA says:
    @Anon

    Yes but not in Christendom . Land of Christinaty wont allow it back then . So athirst before 1700 didnt publicly exist . Neither non Christians . There was no non Christian church after Constantine .

  27. KA says:
    @j2

    Your number 3 is the product of Darwin, enlightenment , discoveries and inventions, psychology, and development of social safety net — everything in these categories would have allowed per the author – mutant gene .
    Everything you have mentioned refute spiteful altruism , spiteful asociality and paranoia and laugh at paranormal ,question hierarchy , condemn exploitation and injustice , and emphasize healthy life choices.

    • Replies: @j2
  28. KA says:

    Mutant genes that caused still births,miscarriages,or early infancy death before industrial revolution, are now ( for better care ) surviving but for some reason they are physically healthy but are atheist paranoid and left handed . Not only that they are now group selected which they were not before .

    And they are heathy but not religious.

  29. KA says:

    From the original article

    “. As Norenzayan and Shariff (2008) have observed, hunter-gatherer societies do not generally have moral gods, but rather a large number of spirits who are appeased in various ways. So, we can conclude that complex pre-industrial societies were strongly selected not merely to be religious in a general sense, but to revere and believe in moral gods who were concerned with people’s moral behaviour and to engage in collective rituals to worship these gods. Insomuch as selection continued up until the Industrial Revolution, we would expect people to have become increasingly religious in this specific way across time. Indeed, Dutton and Madison (2017) have shown t

    How did those defective genes serving the spirit and appeasing the paranormal Devils survive without the benefit of high Greeck culture or 1800 socio scientific development?

    If relegious development were a refining process conducted by genes, we would see more devotion belief strong attachment to religion in all forms in 1799 and not in 700 , not in 200 or 509 or 1200 AD but in 1700 .

    and we would see strong devotion among those who don’t carry those ‘ autism , schizophrenia, left habdedness , paranormal belief or any position along the spectrum ‘ genes .

  30. NO.

    ”recent”**

    Humans are the only one animals which believe in nonexistent things. It’s the otherwise, atheists and agnostics are not recent but always here, often as a minority.

    The big difference between nonhuman animal beliefs and human is: INSTINCT.

    Religion replaced the instinct. Just like a pacemaker. And people who are more prone to this magical thinking started to be more selected, specially for sociopathic elites.

    What we can say with more evolutionary-historical accuracy is:

    atheists/agnostics are always t’here, as a minority, but if they start to be selected over religious people, human culture itself at least in terms of factual understanding or heuristic will be strongly improved.

  31. For SJWs, the religious are at best stupid

    Many SJW’s are religious…

    Almost SJW’s are ideologious…

    But ”they” are correct, in this..

    ANYONE who believe in ”virgin woman was pregnant by a master creator of universe”

    IS/ is being

    in this specificity

    STUPID

  32. To be sophisticated, these days, means that you’re an atheist. Academia is overwhelmingly atheist and average intelligence weakly correlates with not believing in God

    NOPE, be atheist or at least suspicious about ALL human MYTHOLOGIES is not ”to be sophisticated”, it’s to be SANE.

    Many of your claims seems weakly analysed…

  33. Disorder [all life are disordered, existence itself is... only emptyness which is perfect] sometimes is not bad at all, specially when

    healthy is correlated with psychological domestication.

    psychological domestication === religious BELIEF.

  34. Until the Industrial Revolution, we were under harsh conditions of Darwinian Selection, meaning that about 40% of children died before they reached adulthood. These children would have been those who had mutant genes, leading to poor immune systems and death from childhood diseases. But they would also have had mutant genes affecting the mind. This is because the brain, home to 84% of the genome, is extraordinarily sensitive to mutation, so mental and physical mutation robustly correlate. If these children had grown up, they might have had autism, schizophrenia, depression… but they had poor immune systems, so they never had the chance.

    I read somewhere that the incidence of psychosis have reduced over XX century and not increased…

    Most conjectures, you can’t conclude anything about it without evidences. And people react differently to different infections. I had mumps and ”i survived”: i’m lefthanded, homossexual and agnostic atheist.

    Maybe the mortality of people with psychological disorders was HIGHER than people without, but not TOTAL as you’re suggesting.

    I’m not totally convinced that all people with EXPLICIT or not-selected mental disorders have lower immune systems.

    Most of this children which died in the past were not mentally disordered or are left handed, i bet.

    And many them died not just because poor nfant health but also because poor social conditions…

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  35. Among these, the authors argue, was a very specific kind of religiosity which developed in all complex societies: the collective worship of gods concerned with morality. Belief in these kinds of gods was selected for, they maintain, because once we developed cities we had to deal with strangers—people who weren’t part of our extended family. By conceiving of a god who demanded moral behaviour towards other believers, people were compelled to cooperate with these strangers, meaning that large, highly cooperative groups could develop.

    Religion appeared in most of hunter gatherers communities and it was coopted as a tool of power to select more-domesticated people and create a society with a parasitic elite which manipulate people beliefs.

  36. The authors demonstrate that this kind of religiousness has clearly been selected for in itself. It is about 40% genetic according to twin studies, it is associated with strongly elevated fertility, it can be traced to activity in specific regions of the brain, and it is associated with elevated health: all the key markers that something has been selected for.

    Because they are domesticated animals, i mean, qualitatively stupid.

    It’s just like select domesticated cattle by health… or enslaved by teeth quality.

    a whole life for conserfs to understand the difference between correlation and causality.

    Religious stupidity don’t make you healthier, it’s a correlation.

  37. j2 says:
    @KA

    Maybe today Christianity does all this. Once if actually was a suicidal cult: Christians like Paul wanted to be martyred in order to win a prize in heaven. The goal of their sacrifice was the redemption of the sins of the people (as Paul writes, the pagans were without sin as they had not been given the law, thus if a pagan did not circumcise and convert to Judaism, he was not under the law, thus dying as a martyr he did not pay for his own sins as he had none, it was redemption of the sins of Jews). The pagan Christian went to heaven as an innocent sacrificed animal rises to God’s feet to tell about the worries of the people, but the people of the law would get redemption and would conquer their enemies, the Kittim (Romans) and gain the rule of the whole world. This fairly absurd doctrine followed directly from the writings when read in the Essene style.

    I am very happy that at some point Rome accepted Christianity and it grew to be the healthy religion it later was, promoting all healthy genes. But as it started it was a Messianic cult with people wanting to sacrifice themselves because they believed that the Jewish-only gift of eternal life was just promised to them almost for free. All they had to do was to give money to Paul to take it to the Jerusalem poor ones (the poor=Essenes, the Jerusalem Church) and to die as martyrs.

    As for this very healthy agricultural society with all inbreeding as it implies, were the genes so much better than now. I though the Flynn effect is largely caused by decreased inbreeding. Naturally the Flynn effect has stopped by now with all these roads and people moving. The Lynn effect, decreasing IQ, started when kids got mobile phones and Internet and did not any more read books.

    I really think too much is made of genes in this article. There is also the environment. The authors must have an agenda, like this site may have. But I like people daring to publish something like that, only it should be in a blog, not in a scientific publication.

    • Replies: @KA
  38. This is evidenced in increasing rates of autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, sex-dysmorphia, left-handedness, asymmetrical bodies and much else. These are all indicators of mutant genes.

    For homossexuality and left-handedness.

    People were forced to write with right hand. What is the % of ”corrected”-right handers we have**

    Do you did this research, um*

    In the same way, many homossexuals were forced to be ”straight” in the ”golden” conservative era.

    Yes, i don’t deny the correlation among all this things and their mutant nature but you and your colleagues are creating here a hyperbolic or apocalyptical narrative, a conserf one.

    Autism: over-diagnosis + reduction of general fertility rates and increasing the proportion of ”late-mothers-and-fathers”. Universal vaccination are very recent for most countries.

    Schizophrenia: some studies suggest less cases than in the past.

    Homossexuality or sexuality diversity again: in USA the % of homossexuals are ~4% of population, big**

    And again, if late-mothers and fathers are more prone to have homossexual sons or daughters so it’s mean that because increased age-pregnancy more than have appeared.

    It is a relative increasing [if it's really happened] but not absolute.

    • Replies: @Respect
  39. KA says:
    @j2

    We are not discussing the relative merits of the religion

    I agree with you the original author of the article are misrepresenting to advance their personal / collective religious agenda

  40. An interesting and persuasive article. Judging by the vituperation in some comments, it has evidently touched a nerve here and there; #2 is particularly amusing!

    However, the paragraph beginning “But they don’t see this as a contradiction.” seems to me weak. It is an apparent contradiction, that intelligence versus fecundity has gone into reverse, which I think merits better treatment.

    But this is something of a quibble. Against the background of our civilisation dying around us it is at least better to have a persuasive theory than to be bewildered by it, and the article has helped to elucidate that theory.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  41. anon[228] • Disclaimer says:

    where a colony of mice was placed in conditions of zero Darwinian selection and eventually died out. [Death squared: The explosive growth and demise of a mouse population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, January 1973(PDF)].

    Proves many things- need for space, opportunities fr mating, changes for diversity in landscape and need for a sense of belonging to the environment by working for food,safety,mate,and social non sexual mating, but it doesn’t establish the evidence of the Spiritual pursuit as necessary condition to be filled for the growth of mouse colony of any kind . The results can’t be extrapolated to the spiritual domain of human existence It can only refer to similar territorial social sexual issues .

    • Replies: @j2
  42. j2 says:
    @anon

    I finally read this article of the mice. It was incredibly interesting and sound, unlike the article that the post mainly refers to. In the mice article there was no investigation if bad genes were the result of the death of the colony. What happened very much reminded of what is now happening in developed countries, but with mice it could be a result of the environment: social roles become fast occupied, as there was no opportunity for young ones to emigrate a strong competition emerged, this competition was so strong that parental behavior collapsed, young ones were discarded and they did not learn the roles like for mating, and this lead to the collapse.

    This may be a case of mutational load, but the article does not say so. It could be that the effective population size decreased as dominant males monopolized breeding. As the population was small, this lead to a high mutational load (it is a known result of the effective population size dropping below a certain threshold). The mutants did not perform social or physiological roles correctly and the result was the collapse. This is possible, but should have been investigated if it was so.

    There maybe was a corresponding case in Sumer. Before the Flood (many floods between 6000-3000 BC, the sea level rose 1-3 m above present) the population grew (maybe exponentially) and according to one Sumerian myth, people of Levant adopted the practice of killing newborns, apparently as Saturn killed his children (here it was El) in order to prevent the end of the Era when he would be replaced by his child. Killing newborns was a measure against overpopulation and it did lead to a new religion, later known as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There may be a tentative link between the overpopulation and the religion. The mice did not develop a way of killing offspring and the colony died.

    This mice paper is really worth reading, the other one is too political.

    • Replies: @KA
    , @Daniel Chieh
  43. KA says:
    @j2

    Very interesting thoughts. Thanks

    I will add–

    1 Not clear why author linked to this article.
    2 Genes might account for the failures but the time frame is very short for the large number of mutation to accumulate
    3 It is possible that limited mutations in mice can prove fatal in one generation
    4 Interesting article and relevant to our welfare culture – plenty of water and nutrition supply :i.e the basic income for everybody may not work
    5 certain minimum m migration and emigration are necessary for diversity in genetic and ideological pool ( both can give rose to competition and maintain necessary activities in genes and mind )
    6 The fighting even among those not trying to stake out territory for themselves or attack against offspring my mother or prone to injury – this is reminiscent of cutting behavior in depressed youths ,bored autistic , in depressed birds ( when the domesticated parrot are left alone in the house by the owner , )

    May be violence scarcity of food ,fight for survival , journey , social bonding but also personal space are vital for normal human development and survival

  44. Respect says:
    @Santoculto

    Santoculto , how much I like your nick , as well as your entries , full of common sense .

    As you say , children of old parents have more medical and psychiatric problems ( hijos de verga vieja , children of old dick , as the old spanish saying goes ) . Also nowadays premature children survive , but with much more illnesses than the general population , etc etc…

    We have lost common sense …. santoculo !! ….. nowadays we think with our culo . Hehehehhehe

    Greetings

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  45. @Respect

    Conserfs can’t be less full blown JERKS, it’s in their primitive dna…

    Don’t offend me, my sense is never ”common”, it’s always a GOOD one.

    As you say , children of old parents have more medical and psychiatric problems ( hijos de verga vieja , children of old dick , as the old spanish saying goes ) .

    I don’t said this, i said ”look like” …white TRA$$H, jewish plantation goy/ lazy thunker/ whatever/spanitard…

    but, you don’t understand..

    reduced total fertility rates;

    people having kids later;

    increased proportion of this people in general population;

    relative increasing of more–mutant people, but not absolute increasing.

    in other words,

    less people in the next generation
    but more of this people who are later-born..

    10 fruits
    2 oranges

    6 fruits
    2 oranges

    Science work like that:

    u create a hypothesis [or jeesus]
    if it’s hits
    so u heave’n a feary

    so you try two prove this empirically

    something like that**

    AND

    fertility rates of schizophrenic and autists, for example, is very lower…

    I’m not totally against this theory, but we have a lot of biased thinking here…

    as expected coming from [also]white retards.

    Also nowadays premature children survive , but with much more illnesses than the general population , etc etc…

    Seems in the past infant mortality was a relative lottery than a predetermined ones, many ”normal” kids died and many ”abnormal’ survived.

  46. If 40% of kids were likely to die from infant diseases in the past so… 40% of them were poorer health**

    hein**

    Britain demographic explosion//european demographic explosion seems started to happen before universalization of vaccination..

  47. This was a pretty funny read – no idea why (some) atheists would get all het up about it.

    First, it’s typical of research in psycho-babble to conflate attributions; two things that occur at the same time are simply asserted to have the same cause.

    So the fact that God-bothering is on the wane at the same time as infant mortality basically is driven to zero… hell, that must be the environment enabling inferior genetics to flourish. (Which – to continue the trope – is also why there’s been a rise in diagnoses of fictional drivel from the DSM)

    That’s absolutely retarded – it’s of a piece with psychobabble research across the board, so nobody ought to be surprised.

    How about this: let’s assume the preposterous idea that there’s a genetic component to atheism that is not simply the result of superior cognitive ability.

    In the past, if you ‘presented’ evidence for this ‘genetic’ predisposition to atheism, someone set you on fucking fire.

    So the dominant strategy is obviously to keep your non-belief to yourself.

    Likewise, in parts of the world where the social power structure was dominated by people who believe in some variant of the Genocidal Sky Maniac nonsense, expressions of homosexuality were a good way to end up dead… so those who had those tendencies, hid them to the extent possible. (I do not reject the hypothesis that there is a genetic component to homosexual tendencies – but they are not determinative of behaviour, and it is absolutely not clear that their presence has any evolutionary disadvantage).

    Worse still… the idea that anyone can determine, with any precision whatsoever, what proportion of any society is atheist or homosexual – well, that’s right up there in the “pulled directly from the deepest recesses of some charlatan’s ass” statistical methodology that is the stock in trade of the psychobabblers.
    .

    Second: the whole thing shows a fundamental misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of what Darwinian evolution actually means.

    “Survival of the fittest” simply means that traits that confer survivability given the environment, will persist. If the environment never changes, then those ‘fit’ traits will eventually dominate the phenotype. It’s essentially a tautology: things best suited to survive, survive.

    It doesn’t mean that those traits will be ‘good’ (attractive, moral, ethically-defensible, or social-welfare-maxmising): it also doesn’t mean that they will continue to confer survivability if the environment changes.

    Physical strength, for example, is now largely redundant for anything except sexual signalling … and it is useful for sexual signalling because biological drives evolve very very slowly: women ‘cognitively’ understand that economic (and reproductive) success is no longer associated with physicality, but their lady-bits still like a “well-put-together” bloke… hence “marry a geeky lawyer, but have your kids fathered by the pool guy” (same with us men for sexual characteristics of women: we want them to look like they might be über-fertile, even though we almost certainly don’t want more than 2 kids – and nowadays we only have to have 2.005 pregnancies to get 2 live adult kids. To maximise the economic outcome for our children we should mate with a smart woman, but our boy-bits want a bathycolpian with red lips and wide hips).

    Guess what? Society is all about altering the environment. Sometimes in good ways (industrialisation; increased personal liberty), and sometimes in bad ways (sedentary-ness; political parasitism). Likewise, to the extent that there is (some) evolution – both genetic and memetic – that occurs on short timeframes… well, there will be interaction between the three (environmental, genetic and memetic) strands.

    (As an aside: given how much we are learning about the interaction between our microbiome and our behaviour, we should think hard about the extent to which our microbiome ‘evolves’ – over timeframes of weeks – in response to dietary and environmental changes… Why are there so many fat fucks out there? Because their gut flora has been environmentally selected for those strains that make their host crave sugar.)

    So the idea that there is some configuration that is ‘ideal’ (generally a white male breadwinner from a Norman Rockwell painting) is hokum; that is even more so when you consider that society can be, and is, partially driven by memes - which evolve on timescales far shorter than genes. (Society is also partially driven by technological change, but that’s a story for another time, requiring as it does the notion that technology enables us to leverage intelligence in a beautiful and virtuous circle).

    .

    When I read this piece, I just straight-up dismissed the notion that there is a genetic component to gullibility (or its absence), because it’s stupid on its face.

    But, assuming arguendo that there is, the absence of gullibility is a trait that enables survival across a wider range of environments. It’s an adaptive advantage if it’s an adaptation.

    The only type of environment where lack-of-gullibility is a disadvantage, are those societies that resemble the Dark and Middle Ages in the West (and places like modern Saudi Arabia and other ‘fundamentalist’ enclaves). Those places are not making a comeback, for the very sound reason that the stupid stories that their rulers used to grift the public have been exposed as nonsense.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @turtlehare
  48. @Kratoklastes

    Sometimes in good ways (industrialisation

    Where OVER-industrialization, what’s have happened, has been good**

    And about ”personal liberty”, there is some good and some bad ones.

    ALWAYS the same thing ever

    8 or 80

    Most people are naturally extremist, they can’t try to be balanced with their thinking lines.

  49. @Kratoklastes

    I think gullibility has reproductive advantage in the “Non-fundamentalism society” because those people are Immunity to the low birth rate caused by progressive ideology.

    And in the Fundamentalism society this advantage disappear because everyone need to live like who has many baby. And those gene survive from the progressive mind.

    And this “Truth” make many left-wing atheist angry because it’s in terms of evolutionary logic if they agree this they will crash.

    To keep the faith of “atheism must win the future”, they must negative this.

  50. szopen says:

    The engineers higher-than-average score very high on autism score and often have aspergers. Does that mean engineers are all autists, or autism makes one engineer, or people are engineers because they are autists?

    • Replies: @j2
  51. j2 says:
    @szopen

    Most autistic people are low-performing with depressed IQ. People with Asperger syndrome have a bit higher average IQ than the whole population and some of them can be higher-than-average engineers, but you ask why many higher-than-average engineers get higher than average scores in Asperger questionnaires.

    I believe this is true, they score high but not quite high enough for a diagnosis. The reason can be seen in the questions asked in these tests. Asperger diagnosis requires satisfying all categories. Research type people often are socially withdrawn, may speak in an odd way, may have specific interests and they are not good in emotions, but they usually do not show compulsory routines, strange use of words, repetitive behaviors, ultrasensitivity (smells, voices, touch), echo speech, interest in parts of things like toys. So, they do not fill all categories.

    Those engineers are probably as close to schizoid or schizotypical personality disorder (which they also do not quite fill) than to Asperger, and in fact, they are just normal engineers. People are different.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  52. @Dutch Boy

    The reasons for the explosion of autism diagnoses are very simple : expansion of the criteria permitting an autism diagnose and better knowledge and higher awareness of asperger’s syndrome. decades ago, high-functionning autism was barely recognized by parents and school personel. Since then there has been a lot of research and as autism became better understood, the different variations of it became better recognized and new variations were found.

  53. There is a lot of misconception in this article.
    The first instance is that correlation of one trait with negative traits means that this specific trait has been selected against, making it negative. That is of course wrong, because novel adaptations often come with negative consequences (the majority of mutations have negative consequences), that doesn’t mean these novel adaptations specifically are negative, just that natural selection has had less time to effect and adjust the genetic makeup of individuals to these novel traits. The monkeys that represented the next stage of evolution probably had all the defects mentionned in this article, yet they were better able to survive in the end to create the most advanced form of life on the planet.
    The second instance is that a trait being an abnormality means that this trait has been selected against from the beginning of the evolutionary process in an equal timeframe as the normal counterpart, that is of course a baseless assumption.
    The third instance is that the short-time selection of one particular trait, or rather, in that case, supression from spreading of the others, indicates a definitive proof of evolutionary superiority. The princinple of mob rule means that the majority population will repress all kinds of traits it, for some reason, deems as heretical, traits wich could be positive, all of this through the sheer power of numbers. If anything, the suppression of traits linked to intelligence and rationality (atheism, autism) is the opposite of what is claimed in this article, indeed as I’ve already pointed out in another response, there is no conclusive evidence as to the increase in size of the samples of certain mental abnormalities being due to a decrease of natural selection, and instead, even the author seems to admit that, linking the rise in atheism to the environmental change that lead to increased intelligence, there is evidence to them being entirely due to environmental differences of various sorts (increased knowledge being the progenitor of all of them). There are two consequences to this one change in environment : Increase in the strenght of expression of these traits and increased vulnerability to extinction of these traits due to low relative birthrates created by dysgenic society.

    Christianity and other cults for the feeble-minded are the consequence of a dysgenic movement that has appeared since the dawn of civilization, mob rule by the inferior man to keep down the superior man and ultimate culmination into the degenerated human species we have now.
    The author is right, though, about the importance of instinct in the evolutionary fitness of human beings. I think everything would be solved if the environment supported both, high intelligence and rationality, and strong survival instincts. I think it is likely that the leftist (meaning departed from the healthy natural instincts and behaviours that enabled the survival of the fittest) mindset is indeed due to these traits being relatively novel, novel as in relatively untouched by natural selection, thus a combination with healthy instinct and these traits being more seldom.
    The remedy to that is very clear and certainly not a return to the dark ages of stupidity, ignorance and mob rule.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  54. @Nick Diaz

    If these “buck-toothed, Bible-thumping” morons are more successful at spreading their genes than others, then they are indeed more successful in the evolutionary sense. In that regard it turns out that those who believe in evolution are less successful at it than those who do not. But perhaps you are not a full believer in evolution?

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  55. SMK says: • Website
    @Nick Diaz

    I was an atheist at age 10, when I was still a child, biologically, and agnostic at age 8 and 8 as I vaguely remember, and pubescent at ago 11. I was a an atheist at age 10 for the same reason I’m an atheist at age 68 and have always been an atheist: to me, then and now and always, the existence of a God is inconceivable, not simply improbable. How can an invisible spirit, an immaterial person, a disembodied mind even exist much less design and create a universe that is enormous beyond comprehension. And theism, whether Christian or Muslim or whatever, is even more fantastic and incomprehensible. How can a being with no eyes see the actions of billions of people simultaneously? How can a being with no ears hear the words and prayers of billions of people talking and praying simultaneously? Or read the minds of those who pray in silence? What are the answers to such questions?

    • Replies: @j2
  56. SMK says: • Website
    @gate666

    I’m an atheist for the same reason that I’m an anti-communist, anti-Marxist, anti-”cultural Marxist, an anti-feminist who believes that men and women and boys and girls are innately different in profound and significant ways and, consequently, the utopian vision and goal of full equality between the sexes in virtually all areas and aspects of life is inherently totalitarian; a race-realist who knows that the disparities between the races in average intelligence, violence and criminality, wealth, etc. are largely genetic in causation. Because I’m honest and realistic.

    I’m an atheist who detests most atheists, The overwhelming majority of atheists are leftists who are honest and realistic in abjuring the delusions of God and religion but dishonest and delusional in espousing the fantasies of secular quasi-religious utopian or radically melioristic ideologies: sexual and racial egalitarianism; absolute cultural determinism; the utopian view of human are infinitely malleable; the feminist dogma that the sexes are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy; the dogma that races doesn’t exist, that whites and blacks are exactly the same apart from skin color and other superficial bodily differences; that “gender” as opposed to sex and race “beneath the skin” are “artificial social constructs.”

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  57. @Nick Diaz

    Because any one who thinks logically concludes that God or gods are implausible.

    Glad to know you’re so much smarter than morons like Plato, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Bacon, Voltaire, Descartes, Pascal, Kant, Darwin, Einstein, and Sailer.

    You and the equally smug Corvinus should have a great time together at the bar, laughing at the rest of us.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Nick Diaz
  58. @English Dissident

    Its so plainly obvious that survival of previously mortally ill children would introduce more negative genes to the pool that I’m curious why there is such a rejection. Of course reduced selection increases the preponderance of previously less viable genes. Its basic logic.

    • Replies: @j2
  59. @j2

    This may be a case of mutational load, but the article does not say so. It could be that the effective population size decreased as dominant males monopolized breeding.

    No one bred at the end, actually.

    “Beautiful ones” existed, who only groomed themselves. Mothers ate their babies or failed to nurture them. Males stopped fighting for females. It was the “behaviorial sink”; behaviors needed to survived ceased to be.

    Eventually everyone died.

    • Replies: @j2
  60. @j2

    Many autists may have higher amplitude among their ”IQ scores” and many of this low-performing for example higher rates of unemployment it’s due:

    - ”our” society privilege extroverted social skills;

    - ”our” society privilege certain degree of specialization but more about general skills, while autists seems have pretty high specialized cognitive profile and lower general skills.

    Engineers scores higher in PSYCHOLOGICALLY COGNITIVE part of autism questionnaire, for example, if they are likely to be more systematic, creating more rules [mathematic ones] to do trivial tasks for example to shop in supermarkets OR more interested to manipulate mechanical things. In this case, avg men would score quite higher on autism questionnaire than women. In ONLY-PSYCHOLOGICAL part, they tend not to be ”just-like-autists”.

    Indeed, many autists specially aspies, seems, tend to be more ambiguously in gender while ”neurotypical” ”engineers” [tend] to be more straight.

  61. @Reg Cæsar

    Geniuses = /= wiser = / = infallible…

    Appeal to authority.

    A lot of ”western philosophy”, aka, search or love for wisdom, is just garbage semantically manipulated.

    Faith and meaning are fundamental, religions is a intellectual corruption of both.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  62. @SMK

    Most about leftism is the negation of ”darwinian” way of human thinking, which has been shaped [for example, the idea that the way we dress and specially women it's not a sexual signalization], and at priori, it’s not wrong, indeed most about neo-leftism is frankly true, and hardly true for most ”white nationalists” [racism, homophobia, human supremacism, etc] but most leftists look like fault intellectuals or pretend to be ”smarter than you”, that people who are incapable to understand what they are defending.. what is a very sad thing, because seems a majority of rightists tend to be insufferable assholes.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  63. @Homo Excitavit

    Neo leftism is obviously recent but ‘leftist-mind” don’t look ‘novel’.

  64. @Santoculto

    Most conjectures, you can’t conclude anything about it without evidences. And people react differently to different infections. I had mumps and ”i survived”: i’m lefthanded, homossexual and agnostic atheist.

    You are an excellent argument for the author’s premise.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  65. @Santoculto

    what is a very sad thing, because seems a majority of rightists tend to be insufferable assholes.

    But being the magnificent, handsome gentlemen bastards that we are, you can’t stay away from us.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  66. @Daniel Chieh

    I think a chin also will not stay with white nationalists either…

    ”us”**

    I can’t see the relevance or coerence of this comment.

  67. @Daniel Chieh

    I don’t think so, just because the author is a semi-literate christian and believe SOME fairy tales are real.

    Even if it was the case, much better than be a uglyly robotic chin who just toss common nonsense as if was incredible insights and have pride of such stupid giant ”country”.

    Another interesting thing is that i put more thoughts with my comment, but the stupid chin is more interested to contribute with ad hominem…

    Indeed, 40% of kids in the past were likely to be … ”more-mutants”: atheists, autists, homossexuals, left handed…

    Much more nuance and subtlety your primitive brain is incapable to grasp..

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  68. @Santoculto

    My brain is probably pretty primitive, but at least it can grasp basic logic, execute simple tasks such as spellchecking and doesn’t make random assumptions of the author. As a general rule, I put in as much effort in my posts as the commentator I’m responding to deserves.

    You, naturally, not so much.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  69. @Santoculto

    It’s not an “appeal to authority”. The man said that rational thinkers are forced to reject God. None of the men I mentioned did so, therefore, none of them are rational thinkers.

    What’s so difficult about that? Diaz thinks he’s smarter than Einstein, and evidently you do as well.

    Personally, I prefer unbelievers with better manners, e.g., Heather Mac Donald and John Derbyshire.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  70. Nick Diaz says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    What a ridiculous argument. First, not all of those scientists were theists. Many of them were agnostic. And Plato? Plato lived in ancient Hellas, a society that didn’t even have the concept of a monotheistic God.

    But here is the point: all those scientists believed in God, or the possibility of God, during a time when it was nearly impossible not to believe in God. The amount of scientific evidence and general understanding of science as a whole, biology, chemistry and physics, was so poor during Newton’s time that even a genius like Newton was compelled to believe in God. You cannot infer that it was their intellect that made them believe in God, but rather the general ignorance of science in those days.

    No, here is my argument for the implausibility of God: everything that we know from nature, evolves from simplicity to complexity by a process of derivation. Atoms come together to form the molecules of chemistry, and these molecules come together to form living beings. In math, the acceptance of arithmetic is conditione sine qua non for the existence of calculus.

    In God, you have an entity that is immaterial(denies physics), omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, is non-living yet has all the attributes of a living creature, such as: having desires, motivations and sentience.(denies biology). That is, God is unfathomably, perhaps maybe infinitely, complex. Because of this, of all the possible explanations for the origin of the (multi)verse, God is by far the least plausible. God is the “ultimate” in complexity, meaning that God violates the principle that complexity arises from simplicity by derivation.

    Furthermore, God violates the laws of both physics and biology by His very nature, being therefore not credible as an explanation for either physics or biology because his nature supersedes the structures of both physics and biology: he denies physics by being immaterial, and his denies biology by being non-living and yet having living attributes. God denies the very structures that he supposedly should be the cause by his very nature.

    Then, there is the whole issue of anthropomorphism: God is an intensely human concept. God “listens” to our prayers. God “judges” us. God wants us to “love” one another, etc. These are all human attributes; to be more precise, these are all attributes that a species of social primates. That could hardly be the attributes of something that created hundreds of billions of galaxies, each one vastly greater in size than human imagination can even fathom, each incredibly alien to a species of social primates that evolved in a planet in a medium-sized galaxy on the edges of the Virgo Supercluster.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  71. Nick Diaz says:
    @Фрэнк в СПБ

    I am a full believer in Evolution. what has this got to do with anything? Being more successful evolutionarily and being smarter are not the same thing. Sure, the Bible-thumpers might be more successful, but this has nothing to do with being smart. Cockroaches are reproductively more successful than humans, and the biomass of cockroaches is much greater than humans. Yet, cockroaches have brains the size of pin heads. The issue is intelligence and not reproductive success. On average, theists are not as intelligent as atheists. Nowhere did I equate being more intelligent to being more evolutionarily successful.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @j2
  72. @Daniel Chieh

    Yes, you grasp BASIC logic, i grasp REASON, chin…

    No, i, unfortunately, know you since a long time and yup, never change your moroniness..

    Try to add more informations and or interesting thoughts instead toss your robotic style…

  73. @Nick Diaz

    Smarter people and the rational ones are adapted to live in perfectionistic environments, we leave in urban jungles which pretend to be civilized in the good sense of its meaning…

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  74. @Reg Cæsar

    Intelligence is a very broader thing. You can and it’s likely to be smarter than me in many things, in the same levels and below in many other aspects, a very large set of stuffies [included ''emotional intelligence'' which males tend to have huge bias...]

    This absoluteness of ”how smart x is about y” is infantile, even it have a comparative value, in the end of day it’s a artificial one. Near to individual sphere we are more variation and diversity of this intelligence profile we will detect.

    Believe in common nonsense as religion is fatally a sign of stupidity IN THIS ASPECT, as well to believe in ideologies. Most of religions and ideologies are fake philosophies.

    No have difference among ”believe in pregnant virgin from creator of universe”, ”santa klaus” or ”nordic mythology”.

    Yes IT’S A APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, just prove it’s not…

    If Ein$$hteen was the smartest being in this galaxy and he believed in ”god” so supposedly i can’t debate about religion and intelligence, or better wisdom.

  75. @Nick Diaz

    The amount of scientific evidence and general understanding of science as a whole, biology, chemistry and physics, was so poor during Newton’s time that even a genius like Newton was compelled to believe in God. You cannot infer that it was their intellect that made them believe in God, but rather the general ignorance of science in those days.

    I think Newton ”born that way”, also prone to have this mystic vein.

  76. @Santoculto

    ”live” and not ”leave”

  77. j2 says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Yes, this happened according to the article (every reason to believe it is true), but why? Some claim in the web that there were too few generations for it to be genetic. The article does not say the reason was genetic (mutational load). I have been very puzzled ever since I read the article, why it happened? And why it so much resembles our time?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  78. j2 says:
    @Nick Diaz

    In average you are correct, in our times (when the school and media teaches that there is no God) atheists are more intelligent than atheists (as atheists read and believe what is today is claimed to be the truth, two hundred years ago they also believed what was told and were theists). You should ask not the average intelligent but the top intelligent. The top intelligent usually admit that they have no idea of this issue, at least if they are honest, nobody has.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  79. j2 says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    “Its so plainly obvious that survival of previously mortally ill children would introduce more negative genes to the pool that I’m curious why there is such a rejection. Of course reduced selection increases the preponderance of previously less viable genes. Its basic logic.”

    It is not so clear. Children died often of infective diseases. There is little reason to think this selected anything but maybe the immunological response to some bacteria. If the children who died were not any better or any worse, there was no selection. Today in western counties the population growth is close to zero, as it was earlier due to infant deaths. I do not see selection of better genes, not increase of worse genes by the argument that fewer children die from infective diseases, like measles, small box, plague, tubi etc. Those did not select people to be right handed, heterosexual, intelligent or anything, you just died if you got the infection.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  80. Nick Diaz says:
    @j2

    No, atheists do not believe in God because there is no evidence for one and because the concept is logically implausible.

    You seem to propose that humans are infinitely malleable in what they can be indoctrinated to believe and have no volitional control over their thought processes.

    Intelligent people were theists during Newton’s time because the structure of reality was so alien to them, and so many things seemed to have been *designed for a purpose*, especially life, that it was almost literally impossible to not think that there was an intelligent designer behind it all. Now we know better. Theists are now hiding behind the one thing that science still cannot explain, namely, the mystery of the first cause for the Universe. This is known as “God of the gaps”. Theists insert God everywhere science cannot explain something, and once that is explained, they retrieve God to explain something else that science cannot explain. How disingenuous.

    And most of the most intelligent people are not agnostics, which is what you seem to suggest. Many are atheists, and the ones that are agnostic are mostly atheists who believe in a small possibility for the existence of a sentient entity behind the Universe. They use sophisticated arguments based on quantum entanglement, information theory and TOCS(theory of complex systems) to justify their belief in a small, almost improbably possibility for the existence of God. The only extremely intelligent person I am aware of that believes in God is Christopher Michael Langan. The difference is that Langan has an extremely sophisticated theory to justify his belief, the CTMU, that goes far beyond “God did it.” that satisfies most theists.

    What I can assure you is that *no* intelligent and educated person believes that the Bible is literally true. There is a strong negative relation between believing in Creationism and intelligence. As for Intelligent Design, not even the freakin’ Vatican thinks it’s plausible. Most intelligent people are either atheists, agnostics with a strong tendency toward atheism, or indifferent altogether to religion and the concept of a monotheistic God. Only a tiny fraction of intelligent people are theists, and they are radically different from other theists in that they try to use science and infer from the structures of Nature to justify their belief in God.

    • Replies: @j2
  81. @j2

    I think that you’re underestimating the particular sanguine effect of having to fight off infections: think of it macro-scale as every man and woman having to fight off wild animals growing up. This will probably kill or at least less reproductive against a huge number of individuals who deviate from a certain genetic template.

    It should be considered that any mutation, even beneficial, will likely to have tangential effects which cause decreased fitness against that specific battery of natural challenges. Assuming, for example, a “gay gene” that increases one’s artistic fitness probably won’t help a lot if it causes the individual to have fewer children, since by having less interest in women, he might happen to only have 3 children(all which die to infections), whereas someone without it might have 4(and one lives to pass on his genes).

    So yes, childhood death essentially has a kind of “hygenic” effect in that it consistently wipes out genetic deviations except those which basically focus on what we would consider as evolutionarily advantageous behavior/attitudes under a pretty high stress, high scarcity environment.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  82. j2 says:

    “What I can assure you is that *no* intelligent and educated person believes that the Bible is literally true.”

    Sorry, I have to disappoint you having just written two posts, where in this one I apparently believe literally that the Biblical myths of the original sin, paradise list and so on are true and obtained by the best science of the time by star gazing, and that there is a trinity of gods, An=time, what really exists, Enki=life, culture (has a Spirit as you and me have) and Enlil=nature.

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/06/04/the-polar-star-baal-cycle-messiah-and-the-temple/

    While in this other post I argue that there is the soul:

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/05/25/is-there-a-soul/

    Naturally I may not qualify as an intelligent and educated person, but my IQ was once measured as 3.6 SD and I was professor for 13 years. But then you may say that the first post is not literally believing in the Bible, but actually it is more literally than what you today find in Church sermons, I think it is the original version that I have tried to reconstruct. (Do not claim that you do not believe in the world pillar, that is too much, everybody knows that the sky stays up by a pillar.)

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  83. @j2

    The notion of the behaviorial sink is very interesting and I’ve given it a bit of thought. It probably is akin to something like gene/cultural evolution. Rats actually have pretty interesting and complex behavior, including mate guarding and maternal grooming behavior. One thing which was suggested is that the environment without scarcity and high density basically broke the entire chain of behavior.

    Imagine if behaviors are a bit like chemical chains such as a Krebs Cycle – each sequence of the reaction requires the next step to exist. By artificially altering the environment, it shatters the chain of behavior such that entire behaviors are lost and instead, encourages strange and novel…and maladaptive behavior.

    One way to imagine this then, is to consider the effect of birth control on humans. Our behavior set likely promotes us to eagerly seek and optimize to pursue sex, but not necessarily children. It is simply that in nature that the break between sex and reproduction was never expected(and for those naturally sterile, would self-select out). As a result, humans rapidly decrease the number of children we have, as the behavior that was supposed to produce children no longer does so.

    In the case of rat utopia, the males stopped mate guarding females because the presence of many other males made it “too stressful” for the males to believe that it was possible anymore(from what we could tell). Perhaps other behavior, such as grooming, become more pleasurable and produced the rats known as the “beautiful ones.” There may have been some genetic flow, but its definitely the case that massively altering the triggers in the habitat served to wreck their social behaviors, “sink” behaviors and made it lost, and eventually, made them unviable(lack of female care for baby rats probably was the final nail). Nothing weeded out the maladaptive rats, and their very presence probably affected socially the remaining “normal” rats.

    • Replies: @j2
  84. j2 says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    This theory, behavior sink you call it, seems quite probable. The author of the paper suggests something like that, not genes. I think also with humans in a modern society the source of the problem is probably not mutational load but behavior sink. You explain well why people make less children, for similar reasons child education is different now than what it was, so the culture will collapse as we have changed it to something new and are not adapted to it. When agriculture was started in Europe there soon followed a population collapse, maybe because of an adaptation of polygamy or some other change of habits (Y-DNA diversity decreased radically but not mtDNA diversity). One should never change old ways.

  85. So the SJWs are mutants? That explains a lot. I had come to think of them as particularly annoying zombies.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  86. @Daniel Chieh

    This is the level of morality, kindness and wisdom of a avg chin…

    And they promote this psychopathic mentality among themselves, such a subhumans, with honorable exceptions, of course, it’s not you. You don’t change… your lack of precision and nuance is all there since earlier 2010′s.

    Even if it was absolutely the case, a full-human would not had the same insect-mentality as you had/have.

    Assuming, for example, a “gay gene” that increases one’s artistic fitness probably won’t help a lot if it causes the individual to have fewer children, since by having less interest in women, he might happen to only have 3 children(all which die to infections), whereas someone without it might have 4(and one lives to pass on his genes).


    unreadable.

    It should be considered that any mutation, even beneficial, will likely to have tangential effects which cause decreased fitness against that specific battery of natural challenges.

    ANY mutation,

    EVEN BENEFICIAL…

    = 0% of evolution & adaptation & natural selection, it’s sad chin, you can’t.

    Genetic diversity have costs for sure but also increase the probability of escape in worst scenarios, if everyone is a ugly chin and have a yellow plague near to you…

    90% of amerindians died when europeans invaded Americas…

    A beneficial mutation is often decisive…

    this explain sexual species advantages over assexual ones…

    If kids with lower to very lower fitness, those who would die without immunization, have lower fertility rates so, at priori, this macro-conjecture is not working well.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  87. @WorkingClass

    Geniuses also tend to more-mutant..

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  88. @Santoculto

    I do think this is one of the more entertaining meltdowns that you’ve had.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  89. @Santoculto

    If SJWs have high IQs perhaps the later should be considered a pathology. Or a birth defect. Or maybe we average people are too dumb to see the value of political correctness and hating white people. I’m just trying to go with the flow here. I’m no scientist.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  90. @Daniel Chieh

    People as you must be killed…

    no have mercy**

    great, will be reciprocal, ;)

    understand it* ugly and inferior chihn*

    never a giniuss…

  91. @WorkingClass

    SJW is likely to have above avg IQ if compared with general pop but more in verbal sector, and not too much. They are the evolution of religious idiocy = ideology. Ideology look like more-”scientific” than religion, like a materialistic religion.

    Interestingly white SJW’s are moralistic perfectionistic, AT LEAST what their ideological tribe say, but seems not a psycho-historically specific pattern, i don’t believe leftists before the jewish invention of new-left would be different than actually they are, but without a structuralized set of beliefs.

    Joos use historical white morally dumb actions against white people.

    I’m not avg in many aspects, but in not all, of course, my english make me look less capable.

    I’m not scientist either, i have a good emotional empathy..

    All life is a birth defect, more or less. If life was perfect would be even necessary. We are dry ice.

    SJW want overpass our ”selfish genes” but first of all it’s absolutely needed understand everything about it. Indeed, they are not entirely wrong, in most of moral aspects, less gender-bender ”theory” or ”racism against whites disfarced as kindness” [made in jewish brain], they are right, but too stupid and or emotionally biased to understand what they want, what they are defending.

    They don’t seems exactly mentally ill but over-domesticated, many them are excessively childish.

  92. All life is a birth defect, more or less. If life was perfect would be even necessary. We are dry ice.

    I was just having fun with this subject. But I find this part of your reply poetic. Profound even. Thank you very much.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  93. Nick Diaz says:
    @j2

    If you believe that the Bible is literally true, and I mean all the Bible and not just come cherry-picked passages, then you are either stupid or schizofrenic.

    Sure, the Bible might mention the passage of comets and other natural phenomena that did, indeed, happen during the Bronze Age in the middle east, including a possible flooding that might have given origin to the story of Noah’s Arc. But all the stories of meeting God, miracles and such, appear to be allegorical, hyperbolic or just plain false.

    In fact, we can disprove a lot of what is written in the Bible with science. For instance, the Bible says that the Earth is 4,000 years old, while we have archeological evidence and Carbon dating that shows rocks over 3.5 billion years old. We also have fossils of animals that are up to 1.5 billion years old. The Garden of Eve story is just ridiculous. It is the kind of anecdote that you would tell toddlers to teach them moral lessons. It is also easily disproven because we have now the genetic tree of all human beings going back to central Africa some 3 million years ago, and we know that humans did not originate in human form, but evolved from a common ancestor that we have with chimpanzees that looked a lot more with a chimpanzee than a human.

    Sure, we cannot disprove that Abraham and Moses spoke to God, but the burden of proof lies with those who make a claim, and not those who question the claim. Like Carl Sagan once said:”Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.” Anecdotes are not only not acceptable as empirical evidence, they are also not accepted in any court of law in the World. Why should we accept the most extraordinary claim ever at face value? The fact is that this God, who is supposedly Eternal, never once again showed himself, never again directly interfered with the workings of the World, and therefore either inexists or isn’t Eternal, in which case He is not truly godly. Also, why would a being so exalted choose to appear and protect a small tribe of Neolithic shepherds in some middle eastern desert? Shouldn’t He have shown himself to the Greeks or Egyptians, the most civilized and therefore more moral peoples of their time? And why those a supposedly all-loving God play favorites like that, willingly murdering the Philistines on a mass scale, while favoring the Jews? Seems like a very tribal and ethnocentric god.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  94. j2 says:
    @Nick Diaz

    “What I can assure you is that *no* intelligent and educated person believes that the Bible is literally true. ”

    I wrote a shorter refutation to your statement, which is faster to read:

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/06/06/the-most-intelligent-and-educated-people-believe-in-the-bible-literally/

  95. @WorkingClass

    It’s not just poetic, it’s an absolute truth. Best regards!

  96. Infanticide rates and lack of basic hygiene in pre-civilized societies also must be taken into account. Both it’s not natural cause…

  97. j2 says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Please read my short post

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/06/06/the-most-intelligent-and-educated-people-believe-in-the-bible-literally/

    and especially the ending. Humans know much more now than in 3,000 BC, for instance, but they have about the same IQ, or maybe the IQ is now somewhat lower than at that time, not higher for sure. What the intelligent people believe depends totally on what the level of science is at that time. We are not on the absolute top, for sure people writing the Bible in 600 BC were not on the absolute top. It is just so that what we believe depends on what is though to be true in a given time. It is nowhere close to the truth what we (including me) believe today, as we have no idea what will be discovered in the future. It is totally silly to suggest that atheists are more clever than theists based on what we know of the reality. (There may be other better reasons for it, those I do not comment.)

  98. j2 says:
    @Nick Diaz

    I am so happy you answered. Of course, you do not want to find the truth of the existence of anything that is not in the mass media or official science, but you do have the idea that it is controlled. If you do not have this idea, then you have never tried to publish anything original as a not-correct-person, because then you would know that media is controlled. So, there are extremely strong proofs that there is something more than we see. This world is (provably) not the real world. I understand that you will not believe it, but trust me, I am more intelligent and more educated of us two, almost certainly unless you are a genius. You have been fooled, search again and maybe you will find.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  99. @j2

    Are you Finnish? I realized that from the conjugations of death :D I was rather fond of Helsinki when I was there.

    I’ll check out your blog, quite interesting.

    • Replies: @j2
  100. j2 says:
    @SMK

    “to me, then and now and always, the existence of a God is inconceivable, not simply improbable. How can an invisible spirit, an immaterial person, a disembodied mind even exist much less design and create a universe that is enormous beyond comprehension. And theism, whether Christian or Muslim or whatever, is even more fantastic and incomprehensible. How can a being with no eyes see the actions of billions of people simultaneously? How can a being with no ears hear the words and prayers of billions of people talking and praying simultaneously? Or read the minds of those who pray in silence? What are the answers to such questions?”

    I am not a believer in the normal sense of the world, but interested in the topic. In this thread I merely wanted to point out that intelligent and educated people believe what they think is true and what they think is true depends on the current level of science. Once they believed that the world pillar exists and from that developed the concept of God, now they believe in atoms. These people have not seen the world pillar with their own eyes, and they have not seen atoms. Then a question is do we currently have the final truth. I suspect not. One should be skeptical to science. But this aside, you pose a rhetoric question if there are answers to those questions of yours. I give what may be an answer: it is difficult to know what is possible and what is not.

    I have been so irritated by these believers, who claim that Uncle Sam can read all emails sent in the USA. Uncle Sam is an old man with a funny hat. How could he read all emails as there are so many millions or in the world billions people sending mails simultaneously? Then some claim to talk to other people through such small device they call a mobile phone. If is all fake. There is no wire, I cannot see any antenna, I opened one and there was no small person inside. Fake. And what is this other guy Internet, who is supposed to be everywhere? And handling billions of connections? Another fake. Does not even have a postal address, I checked. Not existing.

    So, it is difficult to know what is possible what is not, but agreed, the God of the Old Testament is a tribal development of Sumerian gods and a not very convincing version. Still, you have something you call self and that is not so far explained. We cannot create self to a computer. That, I think, is the origin of human believe in something immaterial and it is still an open question and that is why I still study the topic to understand it.

  101. j2 says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Yes, I am Finnish. I thought of keeping a blog for a while after unsuccessfully trying to write conspiracy novels and studying if any of the common conspiracy theories have any basis (I started it because one of my researchers asked me what I think about the WTC7 fall. I had not even heard that there were three towers which fell and the the fall in the video looked pretty much impossible for gravitation. So, then I looked at the Holocaust, could not get the official death figures, then looked at the old Freemason conspiracy, was correct, to the Jesus conspiracy, partially correct, JFK and so on.)

  102. hyperbola says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Don’t panic. Apart from the clearly “house of cards” arguments that the author needed to construct this “hypothesis”, there is enormous contrary evidence to the persistence of religious sects over evolutionary time frames.

    For example, the reason that there are so few jews in the world is that over 50% of the children do not want to be bound by the brainwashing and crimes of the sect and abandon the example of their parents. The need for small numbers of practitioners in supremacist-sect mafias also plays a role.

    Other examples. The development of christianity for over a thousand years was largely determined by Councils that took place in Toledo, Spain in the years roughly 400-600 CE. Saint Augustine was a major influence in this period – he himself was a Berber from North Africa. 1500 years later (an evolutionary time frame) there were almost no christian berbers.

    Latin Western Christianity was born in North Africa. Indeed after Augustus, some decades before the end of the first century, Christian communities were already numerous and dynamic. Africa saw the birth of the Berber Augustine of Hippo (Saint’Augustine), father of the Church whose thought was to have a decisive influence on Christianity in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Era [3]

    The African influence on Rome was already being felt by 189 AD, when Victor, an African from Leptis Magna, was elected pope in Rome (189-198). That shows the position that the Church of Africa must have had in Rome from the end of the second century on. And in the third and fourth it was to continue to increase.[4]

    In the centuries until the arrival of the Arabs, Berber Christian leaders such as Lactantius, Augustine, Tertullian, Marius Victorinus, Ticonius, Cyprian, Saint Monica (along with rivals Arius and Donatus Magnus) influenced the Christian world outside Africa with responses to Gnosticism, Arianism, Montanism, Marcionism, Pelagianism and Manichaeism, and the idea of the University, understanding of the Trinity, Vetus Latina translations, methods of exegesis and biblical interpretation, ecumenical councils, monasticism, Neoplatonism and African literary, dialectical and rhetorical traditions.[5]

    http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Christian_Berbers

    One could cite many more cases. For example, although the genetic makeup of the native population of Palestine has changed relatively little over the last four-thousand years, the “religiousity” has “mutated” many times.

    Living Descendants of Biblical Canaanites Identified Via DNA
    Genome sequenced from 3,700-year-old remains is found in today’s residents of Lebanon.

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/canaanite-bible-ancient-dna-lebanon-genetics-archaeology/

  103. Kind of ironic to think that natural selection would choose people who tend to not believe in natural selection .

  104. @Nick Diaz

    Atheist’s aren’t logical – they’re just ignorant. They ignore the induction of the natural law and it’s operation in the conscience.

    They don’t consider evidence – there is copious evidence supporting religiosity. The Atheist mutant simply changes the classifications of atheist he or she or zer considers acceptable to that derived from scientody.

    Of course, most science today is scientistry – worthless lies completely divorced from the scientific method.

    You’ve also completely missed the point. According to the model of evolution, which atheists all say they believe in, without understanding almost any of it, the sole arbiter of successful genetic mutation is successful adaptation to environment in order to reproduce genes into a subsequent generation.

    Atheists are monumental failures in the sole point of evaluation of organism success within their own model.

    Atheists are dangerous mutants and should be shunned for the slavering slack jawed bug man soi-boi fools and jackanapes that they are.

    Atheists more then anything else, are simply irrelevant. Irrelevant in every single world view that exists – but especially and most importantly within their own.

    • Replies: @Homo Excitavit
  105. @ViennaCircle

    That’s a nice coping piece of fiction you’ve made there. One would excpect no less from someone who tells himself that evolution is a lie because some mythological book from 2 millenia ago tells him something different.
    Lack of nuanced thinking seems to be a key element in that way of thinking.
    For you, atheists seem to consist of one homogenous group of identical individuals, as you take the behaviour of some atheists and make conclusions about atheism as a whole.
    But not even your generalizations are correct. You call atheists “slavering slack jawed bug man soi-boi fools and jackanapes ” but in truth there is a negative correlation between testosterone and religiousity, wich is why women are more likely to be religious.

    Your understanding of the theory of evolution, as someone who denies evolution, is predictably weak.
    You know very little about even the most basic concepts of mutation and evolutionary forces.
    Atheism is not a gene, it is a trait. Traits are derived from genes but differently so and they rarely come in isolation. That is why a new trait and the mutations from wich it derives are first in need of more natural selection, because as you may know, the majority of mutations are a net disadvantage. So if one novel trait who may or may not be beneficial, is associated with mostly negative other traits, that does not permit inferrence as to its beneficiality.
    Then there is the problem in wich a novel trait can be beneficial with high magnitude, but deleterious with low magnitude, wich you seem to not be able to comprehend either.
    Indeed I would bet that you are one of those who hails other great apes and their existence as proof of the failure of evolutionary theory. “If we are evolved from apes, why are there still apes around ?” – asks the fool.
    And the fact that a little step into the direction of human evolution is more often than not deleterious is one possible explanation, because a slight gain in intelligence will bring more disadvantages than advantages under most circumstances, that does however not disqualify the direction of a trait as a whole, it merely makes its apparition as a superior trait tricky and unlikely.

    Sincerely, from a more advanced man brought down by an environment of stupidity (meaning that I am inferior according to you).

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Jewish-American anti-Zionist journalist
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored